Originally posted by NaplesXJust so we are all clear, about this whole issue, terrorists and non-uniformed combatants are not afforded the Geneva Conventions. those are for Uniformed state sponsored armies and their personnel.

No, but try this on for size:

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

This is widely recognised to be so widely acceded to as to now be part of the international customary law (or so said my International Law lecturer, and who am I to question the wisdom of J.P. Fonteyne?)

Oh: and the US was one of the last to ratify it, on the 8th September 1992.

Article 9 is pretty interesting too:

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

I wonder how that applies to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (especially if these people aren't POWs)?

Edit: while I'm at it, you might want to ponder the implications of the UN charter on the legality of the whole US action:

Charter of the United Nations

Article 2 (4)

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Note that the right to attack a country is only reserved if that country has actually attacked the country exercising the right of self-defence, unless there has been a resolution of the Security Council authorising the use of force. September 11 doesn't count, because Iraq didn't do it.

Note the lack of mention of pre-emptive defence? Thought so.

And this is definitely a part of international customary law, as was decided concerning the US action in Nicaragua in the Nicaragua case (Merits) by the ICJ.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

This is widely recognised to be so widely acceded to as to now be part of the international customary law (or so said my International Law lecturer, and who am I to question the wisdom of J.P. Fonteyne?)

Oh: and the US was one of the last to ratify it, on the 8th September 1992.

Article 9 is pretty interesting too:

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

I wonder how that applies to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (especially if these people aren't POWs)?

Edit: while I'm at it, you might want to ponder the implications of the UN charter on the legality of the whole US action:

Charter of the United Nations

Article 2 (4)

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Note that the right to attack a country is only reserved if that country has actually attacked the country exercising the right of self-defence, unless there has been a resolution of the Security Council authorising the use of force. September 11 doesn't count, because Iraq didn't do it.

Note the lack of mention of pre-emptive defence? Thought so.

And this is definitely a part of international customary law, as was decided concerning the US action in Nicaragua in the Nicaragua case (Merits) by the ICJ.

To show how much that document means:
iraq ratified it in 1976 as did Iran and Syria.

Originally posted by NaplesXThe UN is an impotent bureaucracy. That document like virtually all from the UN are worth less then the paper they are written on.

I think that most clear thinking people can see that.

And you don't think that the flagrant abuse of the most fundamental tenets of the IHR system by supposedly "leading" states like the US is one of the major causes of the general lack of respect of the system? It's pretty hard to take seriously when even the US apparently couldn't give a toss about human rights.

As for the UN being ineffective, I suggest you tell that to the millions of refugees helped by the UNHCR and the hundreds of thousands of people saved by UN Peacekeeping missions in places like Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Balkans and elsewhere.

Perhaps it would be more effective if the US ever bothered paying its dues, rather than spending the money on nuclear weapon development?

Originally posted by Smircle"The US - as good as some of the worst dictatorships worldwide" - or what are you trying to say?

Really, if I ever had to defend my country by pointing out it acted no worse than Iran and Syria, I'd be pretty ashamed.

If you put out a non-enforceable and so obviously bogus agreement and you have the likes of Iraq. Iran, Syria, you can see how much weight that document has. Did you say it was ratified when, '92, would that have been under Clinton? Why sign something that noone had any intention of upholding.

You saw what the insurgents, now thought to be former regime members, felt about one of the other meaningless UN covenants or treaties.

This is what I can't understand. The US for the most part tries to be civil as possible, yet when atrocities against the US happen people automatically assume that it did something to deserve it!

You know, the more I try to have conversations with you people here in AO, the more I wonder if I am actually taking to adults.

I know you will just say something like "look who's talking!" or "Pot calling the kettle black" or some bogus psychology. But the fact remains, I have diligently tried to refrain from the inevitable "flame wars" and juvenile name calling. I choose my words carefully, so I am not doing the very thing I am complaining about.

I had a conversation with jimmac a while back and he called me every name you can think of because I was disagreeing with him. I eventually (much to late) realized it was going nowhere. I then decided to try to agree with him, he then called me even more names and further questioned my sanity, intellect, and age. I think I tried the same thing with Giant at one point with much the same result. He however thinks it's funny or clever to criticize websites that I have worked on and listed on my site. (Although the funnier thing is I don't like some of the same ones he is making fun of, so it is a zero gain for him.)

Like many of you I have an opinion based on many factors. Even if similar it will most likely be different than yours. Do you really need to sink to such a low standard to get your point across.

I am actually getting bored with the whole thing and am considering leaving and not coming back. Not that you guys need me, in particular, but is that what you want to accomplish? A liberal borg-like groupthink forum.

I have learned a lot here, believe it or not, mostly from you left leaners. I really thought that was the purpose of these forums. I am convinced that many here don't look at it that way.

Originally posted by NaplesXIf you put out a non-enforceable and so obviously bogus agreement and you have the likes of Iraq. Iran, Syria, you can see how much weight that document has. Did you say it was ratified when, '92, would that have been under Clinton? Why sign something that noone had any intention of upholding.

Treaties like this were traditionally proposed by western nations because they knew they had no problems to fulfil them, but it would strengthen the position of the opposition in dictatorships. This way, even non-democratic countries had to abide by some minimal code of conduct if they wanted to avoid losing all credibility.

The way it worked can be seen by the communist block which signed some human-rights declarations during the KSZE conferences which proved to be a nail to their coffin.

You might be so intoxicated by your neocon lunacy you have completely lost any sense of what it means that the US of all countries has broken any anti-torture convention it has signed - suffice to say that over here, it is seen as a shame to the whole western world. Coincidentially, one of the major hurdles for Turkey joining the EU was widespread torture there...

BTW: to the best of my knowledge, Clinton became president in '93 - but hey, whats a year more or less...

Yeah, the military drove through a Norman Rockwell neighborhood in Iraq and randomly picked peaceful people to fill the jails. There isn't enough bad people to pick from, I guess.

This conversation is stupid because some of you want to believe that 90% of the prisoners are just victims of circumstance. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.

I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.

Stop the presses this just in:

Quote:

The release today of 617 prisoners from Abu Ghraib was the fourth release this month and the largest, a spokesman for the occupation authorities said, since the publication of photographs showing American soldiers abusing prisoners there.

Over all, several thousand prisoners have been freed, and the numbers are accelerating as the planned transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30 approaches, the spokesman said.

.
.
.

There are now about 3,000 detainees in Abu Ghraib, said the occupation authority's spokesman.

Nada Doumani, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that the organization was told in April by American authorities that there were about 7,000 detainees in Abu Ghraib. She said she could not account for how many had been released and how many might have been transferred.

"Between 70 and 90 percent of the people detained did not have specific charges against them," she said.

Lets see if about 3000 still remain after releasing 617 prisoners then there were about 3600 prisoners detained prior to this release. Pretty simple concept. Lets do some math though:

about 600 realeased so the percentage of the prison population unjustly held can be found by:

prisoners released/total prison pop prior to release x 100%

600/3600 x 100%

which is about 17%.

Now if we look at the 7000 figure given to the ICRCC and compare that to the current population we can say the following:

current number of detainees/max detainees x 100%

3000/7000 x 100%

That's about 43% of the max prison population still remains locked up, or rather 57% of the prison population has been released since the ICRCC submitted its report using US figures in Jan of this year.

17% for one realse not insignificant.
57% NOT insignificant.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Court transcripts and Army investigator interviews provide the broadest view of evidence that abuses, from forcing inmates to stand in hoods in 120-degree heat to punching them, occurred at a Marine detention camp and three Army prison sites in Iraq besides Abu Ghraib.

Why shouldn't our President be impeached for this?

"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq

Lets see if about 3000 still remain after releasing 617 prisoners then there were about 3600 prisoners detained prior to this release. Pretty simple concept. Lets do some math though:

about 600 realeased so the percentage of the prison population unjustly held can be found by:

prisoners released/total prison pop prior to release x 100%

600/3600 x 100%

which is about 17%.

Now if we look at the 7000 figure given to the ICRCC and compare that to the current population we can say the following:

current number of detainees/max detainees x 100%

3000/7000 x 100%

That's about 43% of the max prison population still remains locked up, or rather 57% of the prison population has been released since the ICRCC submitted its report using US figures in Jan of this year.

17% for one realse not insignificant.
57% NOT insignificant.

I feel these releases are a direct result of political pressures. These releases are dumb, and will come back to haunt the coalition if it has not done so already.

Originally posted by NaplesXI feel these releases are a direct result of political pressures. These releases are dumb, and will come back to haunt the coalition if it has not done so already.

The your feelings are simply uninformed.

Quote:

From a report generated by General Ryder obtained by the NY Times:
General Ryder, the Army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for several months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" toward the American occupying forces. The Nov. 5 report said the process for deciding which arrested Iraqis posed security risks justifying imprisonment, and for deciding when to release them, violated the Pentagon's own policies. It also said the conditions in which they were held sometimes violated the Geneva Conventions.

From a report generated by General Ryder reported on in USNews and world report:

Due process, court system shortfalls and dependence on US military judge advocates
"The majority of courts are operational, but "there is no plan or timeline for withdrawal of JAG assistance."

"Resource and manpower limitations have made it very difficult to get [juvenile detainee] cases reviewed and to release those individuals that pose very little or no danger."

"There exists no Iraqi method by which to investigate allegations of improper conduct and corruption by judges and prosecutors.

"Employees, particularly prison guards, are complaining about not being paid in a timely manner." Report warns that "this situation is likely to deteriorate and result in partial or massive walkout of Iraqi prison guards, staff and others" which would require a massive reintroduction of MPs.

The report notes that CPA has allowed the 72-hour review required by the Geneva convention to be measured from the time that detainees arrive at the central collection point in Baghdad. Soldiers have 14 days to bring those detainees to Baghdad. The report recommends that this period be shortened if possible, and notes that "While this has apparently not been the focus of any ICRC [Red Cross] personnel, itmay be that they have not understood the delay in the 72-hour review."

In other words, the Ryder report suggests that ICRC may not have spotted this Geneva violation.

The report says that some persons ordered to be released have not been released in a timely manner, and some were even moved to another facility instead of being released.

It notes a shortage of JAG and MI personnel for expected volume. It also recommends immediate review and approval of the request for more judge advocates and support personnel to speed up the reviews.

No system for tracking and release of prisoners

"There exists no tracking system for the courts, detention facilities or prisons."

"As a result, some detainees are not being tracked at all, and most detainees are only being tracked at individual camps." The data is not available in a central location.

A rehash of reports that have been floating around and verified about the Abu Garaib prison scandal form The Washington Post

The International Committee of the Red Cross said in a February report to U.S. military commanders in Iraq that military intelligence officials had said that 70 percent to 90 percent of those incarcerated in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. The Red Cross also said detainees at Abu Ghraib were frequently "questioned without knowing what they were accused of." It described the U.S.-led military coalition as "uncaring" about international rules requiring notification of families. This behavior "seriously affects the image of the Occupying Powers amongst the Iraqi population," the Red Cross said.

Wake up and smell the roses there killer. Your "feelings" are not based on real information but rather some strange "we are good they are evil thus we are right" emotion.

Thank you come again.

Did I do something to warrant you acting like a complete ass****?

You can imply that I am wrong, you are, in fact, entitled to your opinion. But my "feeling" is the same. BTW, I did read those accounts, thank you very much.

I really haven't had a ton of time to look into it, but I have some serious questions about the whole RC report:

1. Was the information that 90% of them were arrested by mistake gleaned from the detainees only?

2. How much info taken from the detainees was verified? In other words did we just take what potential terrorists and criminals at face value?

3. If, like some have said, these people that supposedly were held without real reason, are now going to spend their time fighting and killing coalition forces, were they in fact just innocent bystanders, with the noblest of intentions toward those forces? How many of us after being detained, even if it was unwarranted, would plant roadside bombs and fire rocket launchers at authorities, domestic or foreign?

I have heard many people say that these people are now enemies, because they were detained, supposedly wrongly. I suppose we will see how much of a boost the insurgency will get with this large number of people, that supposedly now have even more reason to kill. What moral person condones killing in retaliation for being mistreated?

That is the problem I have with this line of thinking. I hope that I am totally wrong. But I am afraid that I am not.

Originally posted by NaplesXWhat moral person condones killing in retaliation for being mistreated?

An eye for an eye and all that. Keep in mind, though, that "mistreated" in this case might have meant, you know, being raped with a broomstick or having electrodes attached to your genitals and being told you were going to be electrocuted. And even if these were isolated cases (they weren't) by a few bad apples (they weren't; it was systematic), it is also torturous to allow a prisoner to think he/she is going to be tortured.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Originally posted by midwinterAn eye for an eye and all that. Keep in mind, though, that "mistreated" in this case might have meant, you know, being raped with a broomstick or having electrodes attached to your genitals and being told you were going to be electrocuted. And even if these were isolated cases (they weren't) by a few bad apples (they weren't; it was systematic), it is also torturous to allow a prisoner to think he/she is going to be tortured.

So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?

Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?

Originally posted by NaplesXSo being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?

Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?

Look, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.

And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.

You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.

Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?

For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Originally posted by midwinterLook, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.

And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.

You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.

Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?

For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.

Yeah, let's not forget they were happily getting tortured (buried alive and and dipped in acid) and mass murdered (actually being gassed by those nonexistent WMDs) before the US deposed their beloved leader.

According to news reports, virtually all of the infrastructure issues have been restored to prewar levels, oil output is above prewar levels.

If the US is so bad, why does it rebuild the damage that they cause?

Of coarse you have to completely exonerate SH and his government of any wrongdoing or fault in order to place all blame at the feet of the US/Coalition.

I guess the US is fixing damage caused by SH. Those heartless bastards.

Originally posted by midwinterLook, you asked what kind of people respond to "mistreatment" (a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened) with a desire to kill their those responsible for their treatment. I obliquely responded that people who have been tortured might wish death upon their torturers.

And don't be obscene by trying to even pretend I meant all the soldiers deserve death. Do I think the people responsible for torturing the prisoners ought to get more than a year in the clink? Absofuckinglutely. One year is a laughable punishment for what amounts to a crime against humanity.

You seem to want to think that this is the only thing that's set some/many Iraqis off against us. Do not forget, because the Iraqis sure as hell won't, that we invaded their country, overthrew their (dictatorial) ruler, and imposed freedom on them at the point of a gun. Our soldiers patrol Iraqi streets every night. There are curfews. We destroyed large chunks of the infrastructure in Baghdad, leaving people without power and water for weeks at a stretch. We arrest people who cannot produce the proper paperwork, and when we throw them in prison, there's a chance they'll be tortured.

Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?

For what it's worth, they're not "insurgents." Insurgents come from somewhere else and fight for a cause. These people would more accurately be described as "rebels" who are waging a guerilla campaign against an occupying force.

Oh yeah, A & E is playing some documentaries about SH and his regime. You may want to watch, and if you miss it it I would suggest you order the tapes.

Originally posted by NaplesX
Yeah, let's not forget they were happily getting tortured (buried alive and and dipped in acid) and mass murdered (actually being gassed by those nonexistent WMDs) before the US deposed their beloved leader.

I said nothing about him being beloved. He was a mass-murdering fuckhead.

Quote:

According to news reports, virtually all of the infrastructure issues have been restored to prewar levels, oil output is above prewar levels.

Yay! It's only taken a year!

Quote:

If the US is so bad, why does it rebuild the damage that they cause?

Because that is how you conquer the world.

Quote:

Of coarse you have to completely exonerate SH and his government of any wrongdoing or fault in order to place all blame at the feet of the US/Coalition.

I'll tell you what, mate. You don't accuse me of trying to exonerate SH and his regime when clearly I said nothing along those lines and I won't make up things that you've said and tilt at them? Sound fair? Of course it does.

It's one thing to debate what I say; it's another thing entirely to invent things I say and then debate them.

Quote:

I guess the US is fixing damage caused by SH. Those heartless bastards.

Well, blowing a lot of it up didn't help. And now that we've rebuilt it, we get to keep it!

I'll say it again:

Quote:

Originally written by me and ignored by you:

Is that justification for "joining an insurgency"? You tell me. How much of that would you put up with if, say, France occupied the US, overthrew Bush, and started trying to force everyone to give up Kraft singles and eat stinky cheese? And if you refused to eat the stinky cheese, you'd be locked up. French soldiers would freely roam through your house. French soldiers would be able to lock you up for even suspecting that you weren't on board with the stinky cheese-eating. And look. Stinky cheese isn't so bad. It's a delicacy. All of the finest people in the world recognize that stinky cheese is some of the best cheese there is. Everyone likes stinky cheese, in the end. It may take some getting used to, but it's far better than the other cheeses out there once you see what the field looks like. So tell me, after considering all of this, are you with America, or are you with the French?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Originally posted by midwinterI said nothing about him being beloved. He was a mass-murdering fuckhead.

Good, then I will expect to see instances where you place the blame where it lies, no?

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterYay! It's only taken a year!

Most wars take far longer, and then rebuilding takes even longer. So yeah, yay for the Iraqi people they can start to move forward.

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterBecause that is how you conquer the world.

You have been watching too many "Pinky and the Brain" cartoons.

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterI'll tell you what, mate. You don't accuse me of trying to exonerate SH and his regime when clearly I said nothing along those lines and I won't make up things that you've said and tilt at them? Sound fair? Of course it does.

I didn't say you were trying to do anything, I was trying to point out the choice one has to make to lay sole blame at US' doorstep, MATE. You seem to have made that choice, and you are allowed to. Don't get mad when I point out the flaw in that logic. OK, mate?

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterIt's one thing to debate what I say; it's another thing entirely to invent things I say and then debate them.

Read the above statement.

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterWell, blowing a lot of it up didn't help. And now that we've rebuilt it, we get to keep it!

I guess we got to keep Germany, Russia, and France? I am not sure what you mean by that, but according to the "conquer the world" and then this, I can only guess you feel that this is imperialistic war. I say history proves that notion wrong. The countries I mentioned have free will and are not tied to the US, as made obvious by their decision to protest the US decision.

Russia: we didn't conquer it. At all. We did invade (with lots of other countries) in 1919 but wisely withdrew.

Germany: we conquered it and partitioned it with three other countries and we most certainly did control it until it got nominal sovereignty in the mid 1950s. After that, influence was more indirect (and the Cold War was raging [right word for a cold war?], so priorities shifted among all participants).

Originally posted by NaplesX
So being raped, or receiving electric shock should then bring on a punishment of death? So do all soldiers over there deserve that fate, because of the actions of a few?

A few? I know Bush has said words to that effect, but honest and reliable sources have indicated "systematic and widespread" abuse and torture.

Quote:

Such treatment then means that the recipient of such treatment is justified in joining or starting a deadly insurgency?

It is unheard of for a nation under an oppressive occupation not to resist with guerilla style methods. Turn the tables, and imagine the US people under the thumb of a foreign invader that loots, rapes, plunders and pillages. The patriotic action is to resist, in whatever way you can.

If our own Defense Dept is investigating cases of thefts from Iraqi civilians whose homes have been searched, then the real situation is undoubtedly far, far worse. The tip of a very large and ugly iceberg.
Operation Iraqi Freedom. A big steaming, stinking heap of BS

Originally posted by NaplesX
Good, then I will expect to see instances where you place the blame where it lies, no?

Blame for what? Our soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners? That's what this thread is about. See, this is what I was talking about. You can't just invent claims and then not tell us what they are. You seem, I think, to want to turn this thread from that into some kind of vilification of the people who were tortured for not being nice to us. Is that it? If that's the case, then you didn't ask the question in a direct manner. You asked what kind of people would respond to "mistreatment" with a desire to kill their mistreaters. I very clearly responded that some of them weren't just mistreated. They were tortured. And if you think you could be tortured and then say "Ah well, it was just a misunderstanding. Forgive and forget!" you're a fool.

Quote:

Most wars take far longer, and then rebuilding takes even longer. So yeah, yay for the Iraqi people they can start to move forward.

This war has been OVER for a year. Don't you remember Bush standing on that carrier and declaring that major combat operations are over? But yes. The rebuilding and shepherding of Iraq into the warm glow of democracy will no doubt take a long time.

Quote:

You have been watching too many "Pinky and the Brain" cartoons.

And you haven't been paying attention to history. At all. What do you think, that we conquer some country, rebuild it and then say "see ya later, sorry for all that death and destruction"? Seriously. I'm asking. Do you not understand why we rebuild a conquered country?

Quote:

I didn't say you were trying to do anything, I was trying to point out the choice one has to make to lay sole blame at US' doorstep, MATE. You seem to have made that choice, and you are allowed to. Don't get mad when I point out the flaw in that logic. OK, mate?

I love it when you try to be condescending. It's so cute. But watch the logic of your sentence:

Step 1: "I didn't say you were trying to do anything."
Step 2: Make some crazy-assed claim about what other people are arguing that bears no resemblance to reality. In this case, that ANYONE here is laying blame for something "at the US's doorstep." The only thing I'm putting on the US doorstep is that OUR BOYS TORTURED PEOPLE. But you need to keep in mind that the moment we invaded Iraq, it became OUR PROBLEM. We own it now.
Step 3: "You seem to have made that choice."

So in other words, "I didn't say you were trying to do anything other than make some dumb-assed claim that I'm just pretending you tried to make."

Nevertheless, you didn't point out a flaw in any logic that I remember.

Quote:

I guess we got to keep Germany, Russia, and France?

This makes no sense at all. NONE. Not one bit. Germany: we're still there, and it was ours, as Greg points out, until the 50s. Russia? When did we invade Russia aside from 1919? France? We conquered France? STOP THE PRESSES! REWRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS! We ran the Germans out of France and then kept Germany.

Quote:

I am not sure what you mean by that, but according to the "conquer the world" and then this, I can only guess you feel that this is imperialistic war.

As opposed to some other kind of war? What do you think wars ARE, anyway? Seriously. I'm asking.

Quote:

I say history proves that notion wrong.

I say rubbish. I say utterly insane rubbish that indicates no knowledge of history whatsoever.

Quote:

The countries I mentioned have free will and are not tied to the US, as made obvious by their decision to protest the US decision.

You do know that France and Germany existed prior to their opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, right?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Originally posted by midwinterBlame for what? Our soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners? That's what this thread is about. See, this is what I was talking about. You can't just invent claims and then not tell us what they are. You seem, I think, to want to turn this thread from that into some kind of vilification of the people who were tortured for not being nice to us. Is that it? If that's the case, then you didn't ask the question in a direct manner. You asked what kind of people would respond to "mistreatment" with a desire to kill their mistreaters. I very clearly responded that some of them weren't just mistreated. They were tortured. And if you think you could be tortured and then say "Ah well, it was just a misunderstanding. Forgive and forget!" you're a fool.

Ah but that is exactly what many vets of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and others did and are doing. They moved on and are still doing so. Where is your outcry for their torturers? This whole thread is just political garbage. I am slow and even I can see that.

I would like to see everyone put blame where it belongs, as opposed to where the collective democrat/liberal finger is firmly locked in place, now.

Bush had nothing (zero, zip, nada) to do with any prisoner being mistreated. In fact this war was started by a small group of people long ago, and Bush was not in that group. Of course I mean SH and crew. Ultimate responsibility and blame lies on SH for a lot of this. Don't forget recent history even though we are talking WWII and such.

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterThis war has been OVER for a year. Don't you remember Bush standing on that carrier and declaring that major combat operations are over? But yes. The rebuilding and shepherding of Iraq into the warm glow of democracy will no doubt take a long time.

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." Do you forget those words from that speech? Over? Maybe among liberal pundits wish that he said that.

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterAnd you haven't been paying attention to history. At all. What do you think, that we conquer some country, rebuild it and then say "see ya later, sorry for all that death and destruction"? Seriously. I'm asking. Do you not understand why we rebuild a conquered country?

I love it when you try to be condescending. It's so cute. But watch the logic of your sentence:

Step 1: "I didn't say you were trying to do anything."
Step 2: Make some crazy-assed claim about what other people are arguing that bears no resemblance to reality. In this case, that ANYONE here is laying blame for something "at the US's doorstep." The only thing I'm putting on the US doorstep is that OUR BOYS TORTURED PEOPLE. But you need to keep in mind that the moment we invaded Iraq, it became OUR PROBLEM. We own it now.
Step 3: "You seem to have made that choice."

So in other words, "I didn't say you were trying to do anything other than make some dumb-assed claim that I'm just pretending you tried to make."

Nevertheless, you didn't point out a flaw in any logic that I remember.

You may want to look back at the conversation. The flaw is that every thing is a result of some US action. That logic is for the weak minded. To say that the problem is systematic is one thing. But to then try to connect it all the way to Bush' office is more political mud slinging. All this assuming that any of us know anything about the actual issue and the full facts.

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterThis makes no sense at all. NONE. Not one bit. Germany: we're still there, and it was ours, as Greg points out, until the 50s. Russia? When did we invade Russia aside from 1919? France? We conquered France? STOP THE PRESSES! REWRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS! We ran the Germans out of France and then kept Germany.

For someone that tries to put himself across as so smart you sure don't know how to read and comprehend to well, do you? The US has fought and put their young men's blood on the line and spent trillions to help those countries. Does the US own them? Does the US even have any influence over them when you would think it would? I suppose in your book, they didn't really need the help? I suppose the contribution was insignificant? If the US did not get involved the French would be saying Sig Heil for breakfast every day along with the Germans. The Russians owe the US a lot also. Give me a break. The US rebuilds it's conquered enemy's countries to promote the global economy, which in turn helps the US economy. Look at Japan.

Quote:

Originally posted by midwinterAs opposed to some other kind of war? What do you think wars ARE, anyway? Seriously. I'm asking.

I say rubbish. I say utterly insane rubbish that indicates no knowledge of history whatsoever.

You do know that France and Germany existed prior to their opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, right?

I love the way you call names and condescend and marginalize. Seriously, keep it coming.